Remember the silliness over the attempt by a certain attorney to secure trademark rights for CYBERLAWYER? The notable part about how that went down was that the foolishness was abated by virtue of a cacophony of webby mockery, a completely virtual beclownment of the first order.
So how you figure this “intrepid” scoop from Jordan McCollum?:
That’s right, folks, you’re all once again about to lose your right to use SEO to refer to . . . well, anything. Back in 2008, one “intrepid” “SEO” [guy] decided he’d trademark [sic] the term and impose standards on the rest of us. That didn’t pan out, so someone else has taken up the [cause].
Or not. Apparently this person is confused about what, exactly, SEO will stand for once it’s trademarked. In the original filing, Search Engine Partners/Shangri-La Boutique filed as SEO standing for “Search Engine Optimization,” which the application claimed they first used in September 1996, and first used in commerce in September 1999. The filing also includes a pseudo mark (this is supposed to apply to other words that are pronounced the same way) of “Strategically Elevating Optimization,” which a company SEP acquired used as a slogan on its invoices. . . .
Or something. This is actually pretty complicated, evidently, but as Jordan says, “Feel free to read the 250 pages of the filing.” Well, for free–no, thanks. (Last night was bad enough.)
But the real irony, of course, is that a self-described “SEO” (“O” meaning not “optimization” it appears but “Optimizerrrr”) would be so tone-deaf, Internet-wise, that he’d want to be next CYBERLAWYER. Unless, of course, it’s, um, an SEO play?
Originally posted 2010-01-28 17:52:48. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
5 Replies to “Web 2.0, but nothing’s changed”